A. In fact-finding Defendant introduced E, which requires money to be used for construction expenses, etc., to the victim, and E borrowed money from the victim.

On the ground that the victim was not well aware of E, the Defendant merely demanded a certificate of borrowing under the name of the Defendant and prepared a certificate of borrowing under the name of the Defendant to the victim formally.

Moreover, at the time, the defendant could not expect that E would not pay the victim's money.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have had the intent to acquire the borrowed money of this case.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, such as the reasoning of the court below duly adopted and examined evidence, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, i., ① the obligor of the loan in this case and the Defendant was obligated to repay the loan in this case at the prosecutor’s office; ② the Defendant prepared a plan to pay 35 million won to the victim around June 2, 201 after the loan in this case; ② the Defendant did not have any property or income under the name of the Defendant at the time of the loan in this case; ③ the apartment sales contract that E offered as security at the time of the loan in this case was no value as security; and ③ the apartment sales contract that E offered as security at the time of the loan in this case was no value as security; it is proper to determine that the court below borrowed money from the victim;

The above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant did not separate the Defendant’s mistake, and transferred responsibilities to others, and the amount of damage in this case is significant.